All quiet on the workplace front?

The first findings of the sixth Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS)(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers) includes data on conflict in the workplace, and has this to say about strike action;

"The proportion of workplaces that etyxperienced industrial action was higher in 2011 than in 2004; however, this rise can be attributed primarily to the increase in strikes in the public sector .The large-scale strikes in the public sector led to a quadrupling of these workplaces reporting strikes. In contrast, the rate of strikes in the private sector, and other industrial action such as non-strike action and threats to take action across all workplaces were similar in 2011 and 2004."

Across the whole survey, 4% of all workplaces reported strike action in the past year in 2011, compared to 1% in 2004. However, the workplaces experiencing strike action comprised 1% of all private sector workplaces and 27% of all public sector workplaces.

This data, reflecting the nature of WERS as a snapshot, may be recording what has so far been the high water mark of public sector industrial action against the Government's austerity measures, given that in the twelve months to November 2012 only 250,000 working days were lost to strike action (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/january-2013/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Labour-disputes--not-seasonally-adjusted-).

That is to say, in the whole year that followed the strike action on 30 November 2011, the sum total of all the officially recorded strike action was perhaps a quarter of the action which took place on that single day.

What WERS says about individual disputes is, perhaps, more informative; "The percentage of workplaces where an employee raised a grievance in the 12 months prior to the survey decreased from 38% in 2004 to 30% in 2011."

I think this substantiates the hypothesis that individual grievances will become less frequent in a time of recession and job losses, whether because workers wishing to keep their jobs are more likely to keep their heads down, or because those who are unhappy will opt for redundancy when the opportunity arises.

As I blogged a few days ago (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/redundancies-could-we-do-better.html?m=1) WERS also reports that "around one in eight workplaces (13%) had made staff redundant in the 12 months prior to the 2011 survey (compared with 9% in 2004)." However the threat to jobs in a recession casts a long shadow, so workers beyond that 13% of workplaces feel the uncertainty.

When the full report of WERS is published later in the year it may be possible to dig further into what this data is telling us about workplace conflict, but qualifying the relative increase in strike action between 2004 and 2011 with more recent labour market statistics, and considering it alongside the evidence on individual grievances, the plausible conclusion I would draw is that workplace conflict is at a low ebb.

Given what is happening in many of our workplaces (pay freezes, redundancies and a ceaseless intensification of work) this is not an encouraging conclusion to have to draw, but if we didn't have pessimism of the intellect whatever would be the point of our optimism of the will?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON must back People's Assembly Against Austerity

The welcome call initiated by the Coalition of Resistance for a "People's Assembly Against Austerity", backed by numerous trade union General Secretaries (http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/05/people-assembly-against-austerity) may give rise to a sense of deja vu to old cynics, but does us all the service of offering some hope.



It may, at this stage, be no more than a call for a single Central London meeting (for which you can register online - http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2013/02/peoples-assembly-against-austerity-saturday-22-june/), but the breadth of support for the initiative suggests that it could contribute something useful.



The organisers hope that the Assembly "will provide a national forum to develop links between trade unions, trade union councils and grassroots community based campaigns, and to build confidence of those promoting anti-austerity views which, whilst increasingly popular, are barely represented in Parliament."



There's a model motion to support the Assembly online (http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2013/02/peoples-assembly-model-resolution/) and this should be taken into Labour Party and trade union branches. I hope that UNISON will support this initiative at every level, since the jobs of our members are so much in the firing line of continuing austerity.



UNISON activists should be tailoring the model motion to local circumstances and UNISON rules and guidelines - and should put the question of support for the Assembly on to the agenda of our National Delegate Conference.



This will require a coordinated approach reflecting, within our union, the broad support for this worthwhile initiative.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Collective Bargaining over pay - from bad to WERS...?

The Workplace Employee Relations Study (WERS) provides reliable data on the regulation of employment relationships (or what we old-timers used to call "industrial relations") across the economy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers).

It gives us some credible, and far from encouraging, information about the scope of collective bargaining. In summary, WERS observes that;

"In the private sector, although formal rights to negotiate over pay changed little, the scope of collective bargaining in the unionised sector declined dramatically.

In the public sector, collective bargaining coverage fell markedly but the bargaining scope was stable."

There is better news, at least in terms of employee perceptions, when it comes to pay (which is the subject of this blog post);

"Nevertheless, unions continue to bargain successfully for employees, increasing the likelihood of pay rises through pay settlements.

Employees' perceptions of union effectiveness in bargaining on their behalf have remained fairly stable since 2004, in spite of indications that their infuence is waning. When employees were asked 'Ideally, who do you think would best represent you in dealing with managers about getting increases in your pay?', one third (33% in 2004 and 30% in 2011) said a trade union.This rose to one half in workplaces with a union recognised for pay bargaining (55% in 2004 and 53% in 2011) and two thirds among union members (69% in both years)."

It may be that our subjective perceptions as workers are shaped as much by past as present realities, and that they have yet to adjust to recent change, for - as WERS observes;

"Union infuence over pay setting has been In decline for three decades. By 2011 only 6% of private sector workplaces bargained with unions over pay for any of their employees and just under one sixth of private sector employees (16%) had their pay set by collective bargaining. These figures have remained fairly stable since 2004.

However, the last seven years has seen a significant decline in collective bargaining coverage in the public sector. Collective bargaining takes place in less than three ffths (58%) of public sector workplaces, setting pay for a little over two fifths (44%) of public sector employees, down from over two thirds in 2004. Strongly unionised workplaces where 100% of employees have their pay set by collective bargaining have been a rarity in the private sector for some time. But they are increasingly uncommon in the public sector too.

A fall in the percentage of public sector workplaces using multi- employer bargaining — from 58% in 2004 to 44% in 2011 — lies behind the decline in public sector pay bargaining.The percentage of public sector employees covered by collective bargaining in Health has fallen from 74% in 2004 to 14% in 2011, in part because the Independent Pay Review Body has resumed responsibility for pay after Agenda for Change negotiations were completed. However, even if we exclude Health, the percentage of public sector employees covered by collective bargaining fell from 66% in 2004 to 56% in 2011."

From the perspective of a public sector not-yet-rarity, working in an organisation where the pay of all but a handful of the most senior staff have their pay and conditions determined by collective bargaining, it is certainly alarming to see this decline in collective bargaining coverage.

The nature of being a worker in a capitalist society is that we have to sell our labour power. The price we get (our wage or salary) is the most important element of that transaction since it determines what we can do (how much we can buy) in that part of our life when we are not at work.

Our predecessors created trade unions because they saw that a "combination" of workers was necessary to even up our bargaining power to get a better deal on pay from the employers. Collective bargaining over pay is probably the most important factor to differentiate a trade union from a friendly society.

However, like all tools, collective bargaining will rust up and become useless if we don't keep using it. As a local government worker, emerging blinking into the daylight after the three year darkness of the pay freeze, only to find the feeble glow of a probable 1% offer (2% less than RPI) as the only light for my future, I can see the risk that we lose the commitment our members have to us on the issue of pay if we can't lead them (us) to better outcomes.

I hope our leadership see clearly the challenge before us...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What do union reps do? (2) What do we do with the time we spend?

The sixth Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS), initial findings from which have recently been published (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers), provides evidence about the issues with which workplace representatives (including non-union reps) have been dealing;

"Representatives were shown a list of 11 items and asked which they spent their time on and what they considered to be the most important issue for their workplace. Union representatives were more likely than non-union representatives to spend time on discipline and grievances, while training was a more common issue for non-union representatives.
Taking both union and non-union representatives together, the most common issues that representatives spent time on were discipline and grievances (64%), health and safety (62%), and rates of pay (61%). The prevalence of these issues had not changed since 2004. Issues that had grown in prevalence were: pension entitlements (from 30% in 2004 to 45% in 2011) and performance appraisals (from 28% to 41%).
The increased prevalence of certain issues between 2004 and 2011 meant that the number of issues that representatives spent their time on increased: 88% spent their time on two or more issues in 2011, a rise from 73% in 2004.
When asked whether their time was spent primarily on collective or individual issues, non-union representatives were more likely to spend their time primarily on issues that affect groups of employees: 64% compared to 41% of union representatives. Union representatives were more likely than non-union representatives to say their time was equally divided between collective and individual issues (23% and 7%)"

In other words, workplace representatives spend our time dealing with basic "bread and butter" issues in the workplace.

The apparent paradox that union representatives are dealing less predominantly with "collective" issues than "non-union" representatives is clearly a consequence of the dominance, in the workload of union representatives of the representation of trade union members as individuals (whether in disciplinary, grievance, sickness or capability procedures).

It is precisely because trade union representatives are part of a collective organisation representing the collective interests of workers independently of the employer that they can represent individual workers against the employer.

It's 45 years since the Donovan Commission famously described shop stewards as a "lubricant rather than an irritant" in industrial relations (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/UNITED%20KINGDOM/DONOVANCOMMISSION196568-EN.htm), but WERS shows that this remains true.

In any industry, sector or profession where productivity depends to any extent upon the engagement or commitment of the workforce, employers need processes to regulate work and the employment relationship which workers can view as at least minimally fair. The role of independent trade union representatives to defend workers' interests remains the most widespread answer to the questions raised by this need.

At the same time, it is clear that many thousands of volunteer, elected lay activists are the bedrock of the trade union movement, dealing with the issues with which workers look to their union to deal.

When the Tory Right stop squabbling between homophobes and libertarians and return to their hobby of attacking trade union facility time, WERS may be a useful source of data to ensure that any debate bears at least some relationship with evidence and reality.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What do union reps do? (1) How long do we take to do it?

Well, what do we do?

When the occasional controversies break out about time off work for union representatives the two sides of the argument often trade anecdotes.

The sixth Workplace Employee Relations Study (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers) offers us large scale empirical evidence based upon interviews with the most senior representative in each workplace surveyed.

It says something about the nature of debate around trade union activity that WERS deals first of all (as I shall), with the question of how much time we spend and whether we are paid;

One in six senior union representatives (17%) carried out their role on a full-time basis.

On average, union representatives spent 13 hours per week on their role with no signifcant change since 2004.

These figures are an overall average, and 51% of union representatives spent less than 5 hours a week on their role.

In the public sector, 19% of senior union representatives were spending all of their time on union activities, 64% were paid part-time reps and 17% were unpaid part-time reps.

This compared with 12%, 80% and 7% in the private sector.

(It's interesting - and worrying - that there are union reps getting no paid time off! And alarming indeed that this proportion is higher in the public sector, where there is higher density and better organisation. We had better explore this further when the full reports from WERS become available later in the year).

Part-time union representatives in the public sector that were paid spent an average of 10 hours per week on their role, compared with 6 hours for their counterparts in the private sector.

What WERS doesn't tell you, but I will, is that many of us, whether paid full time or part time for our union work, also do a lot of additional unpaid time on work which we only do because of our trade union role (and I don't mean blogging on the train home...)

The best way to defend what we have is almost certainly to ask for more, across the whole movement. We also need transparent accountability to our members for every hour of paid trade union time (and if that means the same amount of transparency to the employers, or the Tax-Dodgers Alliance, then so be it).

Tomorrow - time permitting - I'll blog about what WERS tells us about the issues with which we are dealing in the workplace, with the time we have.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Renegade launches ill-informed attack on trade unions

Renegade former trade union General Secretary, Alan Johnson, is apparently calling for a reduction of trade union influence in the Labour Party on a platform bought and paid for by Lord Sainsbury (http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/02/04/militant-moderate/).

Johnson, a former Cabinet Minister who has since found his calling occasionally sat on a sofa next to Michael Portillo (and often on his right) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mvhd), says workers aren't interested in trade unions any more because of the "image of 'fat, white, finger-jabbing blokes on rostrums shouting and screaming'". Having conveniently - and inaccurately - stereotyped the movement through which he rose, Johnson has a particular go at Len McCluskey for daring to want more MPs who support trade union policies.

Unlike Johnson and his lazy and offensive stereotyping of our movement, trade unionists might want to consider the evidence. Are we, for example, "increasingly irrelevant?"

Well, the Workplace Employee Relations Study (WERS) (about which I have blogged previously)(http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/01/unions-in-workplace-it-could-be-wers.html?m=1) says that "in workplaces with five or more employees, the proportion of all employees who belong to a trade union changed little between 2004 and 2011."

That proportion may only be 30%, but it's no lower than it was when UNISON Conference was persuaded by our General Secretary not to call for the resignation of Tony Blair.

Furthermore, a large majority of those trade union members look to their trade unions to deal with workplace issues (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-members-view-unions-in-workplace.html?m=1).

What then has changed since the middle of the last decade (when Johnson courted the support of trade unionists in anticipation of his eventual doomed bid for the Deputy Leadership) to make our former friend change his mind?

It's not that trade unions are less relevant - it's that we're being just a little more assertive in the Party. That's clearly why Johnson and his Sainsbury-funded little helpers in the "Progress" faction berate the unions for spending time in and on the Labour Party.

Johnson says to the trade unions; "You have only got six million members. When are you going to start addressing the real problems you have got?"

I think there are two responses that need to be made to this question.

The first is that many in our movement are trying to address all of the problems which we have, including inadequate union density. Our problems interact, however, and the legal shackles which we face contribute to our limited effectiveness, which impairs our ability to defend working people (and therefore to grow).

These legal shackles were retained by the Government of which Johnson was a member, and I'd bet pensions with him that he'll fight any suggestion of a commitment to repeal from a Labour Government in 2015. Therefore, Progress (and its stooges such as Johnson) are part of the "real problems" which the trade union movement has, and to which he directs our attention.

Secondly, however, the decline in trade union membership over the past generation, whilst certainly alarming, is not unique. In the same period, the Labour Party as a mass membership active political party with a real presence in our communities has withered away.

There may only be 30% in trade unions - according to WERS - but 47% of workers work in workplaces with on-site representation, almost exclusively by union representatives. For these workers, the presence of trade unions remains a part of everyday life. Do 47% of citizens routinely see their local Labour Party campaigning on their streets?

Johnson might have a case for his preferred option of a further reduction in trade unions' policy making role in the Party if he could point to the vibrant growth of other parts of the Party structure crying out to be empowered. He can't because there aren't.

Indeed renewal of Labour as a mass party, if it is possible, almost certainly depends upon increasing - not reducing - the engagement of trade union members in the ranks of our Party.

But then Johnson's preferred position of support for Tory pay freezes and Tory spending plans might be in jeopardy.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

How members view unions in the workplace

I'm still dipping in to the recently published first findings of the sixth Workplace Employee Relations study (WERS)(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers), which provides the best source of large scale quantitative data about our experience of working life.

As any union rep who has ever dealt with an individual or group of members angry and dissatisfied with their union knows, one of our perennial concerns is how our members view us. Particularly for lay, rank and file representatives in the workplace, the views and opinions of colleagues amongst whom we work and by whom we are (or may not be) elected are of paramount importance.

WERS asked employees who they would go to with various workplace issues and found that "most, but not all, union members thought union representatives would best represent them. The percentages of union members who chose union representatives was 76% in respect of reductions in pay or hours, 71% in respect of disciplinary matters and 69% for obtaining a pay increase."

Although we might think all those figures should be 100%, I think they're a tolerably encouraging indication that our rank and file members place some faith - or, at least hope - in our workplace organisation.

Given that the purpose of a trade union is precisely to deal with workplace issues such as these, and that (as a knock-on effect) our performance in relation to these "bread and butter" questions is key to both the recruitment and retention of members, we need to reflect upon what we can and should do to increase the percentages reported by WERS and quoted above.

I offer two suggestions, though there could be many more.

First, given the increased fragmentation of employment and localisation of bargaining, we need to do more to decentralise resources to branch level (which, in UNISON at least, is as close as our structures get to the workplace). UNISON's "Fighting Fund Organisers" might help, but it's a bit early to say (and throwing resources simply at recruitment won't help us do the work which our members expect of us).

Secondly, it's important that we respond swiftly now to the Coalition's attacks upon employment rights which will impact upon our performance in relation to these key workplace issues. For example, we need a "line" on what we'll do about employment tribunal charges faced by members we're representing, should we not resolve an issue at work.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Redundancies - could we do better?

The Workplace Employee Relations Study (WERS)(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers), about which I blogged earlier today (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/unions-in-workplace-it-could-be-wers.html?m=1) confirms the continuing trade union presence in workplaces, albeit this is - particularly in the private sector - greatly reduced compared to the picture of painted by the first and second studies back in the 80s.

The study also provides reliable data from which we can try to assess what we are doing with our collective workplace presence. The recently published summary of the first findings of the study includes, for example, the following information on redundancies;

"Around one in eight workplaces (13%) had made staff redundant in the 12 months prior to the 2011 survey (compared with 9% in 2004). In most cases (87%), managers had consulted with employees or their representatives before making anyone redundant. Managers almost always did so (95%) when two or more employees were being laid off.

The outcomes of redundancy consultation were mixed. The consultation process generated alternatives to redundancy or reduced the number of redundancies in 22% of workplaces where a consultation took place. Changes were made to the employer's means of preparing employees for redundancy in 19% of cases. Other changes were less common: strategies for redeployment were identifed or changed in 14%; redundancy payments were increased in 10%; and the criteria for selection were changed in 5%. Overall, managers' original proposals were altered in at least one of the ways listed in 40% of workplaces that engaged in consultation over redundancy. Some 18% of workplaces experienced multiple changes in managers' original proposals."

My initial reaction to these figures, working for an employer which has made redundancies over the period since the General Election equivalent to about one sixth of its workforce at the time - but where our rearguard action has saved many jobs - is that these statistics suggest that, as a movement, we could be saving more of our members from redundancies.

The statutory requirements for redundancy consultation, where a trade union is recognised, and where 20 or more redundancies are proposed (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/part/IV/chapter/II/crossheading/duty-of-employer-to-consult-trade-union-representatives), give union representatives some clout we rarely have.

"The consultation shall include consultation about ways of—
(a)avoiding the dismissals,
(b)reducing the numbers of employees to be dismissed, and
(c)mitigating the consequences of the dismissals,
and shall be undertaken by the employer with a view to reaching agreement with the appropriate representatives."

Starting from an assertive and informed reliance upon this law, I think we should, as workplace trade unionists, be able to reduce the number of redundancies in more than 22% of cases.

I should add the caveat that the more detailed WERS data which will become available later in the year may enable more informed debate about this question. It's also worth remembering that WERS is a time-limited snapshot and that maybe, as redundancies have penetrated further into our public service heartland, the better organised of our branches are raising our "batting average" when it comes to reducing redundancies.

Nevertheless, activists could do more to share succesful strategies and tactics. My local experience suggests to me that a willingness to encourage industrial action and public campaigning, coupled with an aspiration towards a forensic attention to detail in consultation (with - where it applies - reliance on the public sector equality duty) and backed up by a determined effort to increase membership, and therefore density, is the best recipe for redundancy reduction.

Our unions could do more to encourage a combative approach to resisting job losses - and could do more to give our activists confidence to assert our legal rights as a basis to save jobs.

I'll finish by pointing out that it's because I want more people in the leadership of our movement who share this view that I encourage UNISON activists to try to get their branches to nominate candidates of the left (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/p/nec-2013-left-slate.html?m=1) in the forthcoming elections to our National Executive Council (NEC).

Working people did well to create trade unions, as they are the best way to strive for dignity and justice at work. The evidence suggests they could be better than they are, at least when it comes to resisting and reducing redundancies. I think activists should commit to trying to make our unions better at protecting our members' jobs, which is about rank and file cooperation and communication even more than it's about union elections.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unions in the workplace - it could be WERS?

Last week saw the publication of the first findings from the sixth Workplace Employee Relations Study (WERS) (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers). This is a periodic large scale survey of employee relations in UK workplaces, the first of which was undertaken in 1980 (when it was called the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey - WIRS).

WERS is the best source of in-depth comparative information about how the real work of workplace trade unionism (and the reality of employee relations in non-union workforces) changes over time. This is the "real world" of trade unionism, where elected lay reps speak to their managers on behalf of co-workers (a world away from the realms of Conferences, Committees, Head Offices and Regional Offices which we sometimes mistake for our trade union).

The "fieldwork" (interviews) for the latest WERS was carried out during 2011, since when number crunchers have been crunching numbers. The more detailed report won't be out until the end of the year, but the initial findings provide some important information.

I'll blog more later but, for now, will look at the headline information on trade union presence in the workplace.

WERS found that since the fifth survey in 2004 the prevalence of workplace union representation has continued to fall in small private sector workplaces, but has proved relatively robust in other parts of the economy and there has been no growth in non-union representation.

Here's the detail;

"In workplaces with five or more employees, the proportion of all employees who belong to a trade union changed little between 2004 and 2011. The small decline from 32% to 30% was not statistically signifcant, but is in line with the slow downward trend seen in offcial statistics covering all employees.

WERS provides additional insights by indicating the workplace concentration of union membership. The percentage of all workplaces with any union members fell six percentage points from 29% in 2004 to 23% in 2011, while the percentage in which a majority of workers were union members fell from 14% to 10%.

The recognition of trade unions for negotiating terms and conditions is another key indicator and, here, the decline was less pronounced. The percentage of all workplaces with recognised unions fell from 24% to 21% but, again, this was not a statistically significant change.

Any decline in the percentage of workplaces with union members was restricted to the private sector, and unions now have majority membership in only 3% of all private sector workplaces.

Public sector workplaces account for the majority (55%) of all workplaces that recognise unions, despite the public sector accounting for only 13% of all workplaces in the survey population."

This tells us that, across the period from 2004 to 2011, trade unions sustained our presence in the workplace or, as you might say, "it could be WERS". However, there must be a caveat that this survey gives us a snapshot of how things were in 2011, before the Government's onslaught on public sector employment had really begun to bite.

It's also worth observing that the years of Labour Government (which covered the bulk of the period between the fifth and sixth WERS) were clearly not years in which our movement strengthened our capacity to represent workers at work. This is something to consider when discussing with Labour their 2015 manifesto perhaps?

I'll come back to WERS later (if only to please regular readers Sid and Doris Anorak). There is a wealth of information in WERS and rank and file union activists should study it.

I may ask questions later...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Some questions about Europe for trade unionists

I think Frances O'Grady made a compelling case that Cameron's plans in relation to Europe are to rid the UK of everything that protects workers whilst keeping the free market for big business (http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/28/tuc-cameron-eu-workers-rights).



Of course his plan may fail and he risks a British exit from the European Union, which it seems many on the left (http://communist-party.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1764:morning-star-editorial-let-the-real-eu-fight-begin-&catid=78:eu-a-popular-sovereignty&Itemid=91) would welcome (http://no2eu.com/).



Although at the time of the 1975 referendum I supported a "yes" vote, I was only eleven then and subsequently changed my mind. For many years I agreed with the traditional left view (http://www.lesc.org.uk/) that we should withdraw from a "bosses' club" of wealthy nations.



However, after a generation of globalisation and the fall of the wall, it's not just "actually-existing socialism" (http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/articles/sayers/existingsocialism.pdf) in one country that's looking unlikely.



Social democracy "in one country" doesn't seem terribly persuasive in the twenty-first century.



What if we now live in a world in which an anachronistic attachment to "rebuilding Britain" (http://www.workers.org.uk/) or to "national sovereignty" is, at best, irrelevant to the interests of working people?



What if we have no choice but to reorganise our entire movement across national borders if we want to have a hope of meaningful positive change?



What would that mean for our attitude to a referendum on the European Union?



(And, also, how will we get beyond warm words and good intentions - http://www.unisonnw.org/documents/general/Ver_di_Memo_of_understanding.pdf - to achieve this?)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Don't let them pickle local government

With tremendous chutzpah, Eric Pickles is slating Councils who dare to exercise their democratic right to increase Council tax (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21226239).

In so doing he makes clear the nature of the trap into which local authorities have walked by accepting Council tax freeze grant which, taken together with the requirement for a referendum even for a below inflation increase, is the most dramatic attack upon the legitimate financial autonomy of local government since, well, the last one.

(I was going to say "since ratecapping" but in truth the downward shift in the proportion of local spending funded by locally raised revenue initiated by the Poll Tax and continued under Council Tax has probably been more pernicious in the long term).

By accepting time-limited bribes to freeze Council tax, local authorities have - as UNISON warned (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2851) - created a future cliff edge, a long term budget gap over which central government could push them (and - when they did - the referendum lock would aim to force them to choose yet more savage cuts).

Incidentally, the idea that local authorities who put up Council Tax by 1.99% are somehow "dodging democracy" does as much damage to the English language as Pickles and his millionaire Bullingdon chums are doing to our society. A referendum gives voters a single choice, whereas an election allows us to choose between competing programmes. Local voters should be able to choose their Council - and boot them out if they don't like them.

Labour Councils in particular face an unpalatable choice between tax rises for our supporters, who are already suffering from falling incomes, or the prospect of still further devastation of local services (the "social wage" for those suffering the most).

Unfortunately the response from Labour's local government leadership is simply to cry out in pain (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20869246) or to retreat into fantasy (http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/16/towards-cooperative-councils/). Neither is an adequate response.

All of which makes the sensible and moderate position of "Councillors Against the Cuts" (http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/) more timely and important than ever. Pickles is playing politics with local government finance - our response should be to do (not play) better politics by developing, presenting and campaigning for an alternative to austerity.

Within UNISON we'll have to try to persuade the Standing Orders Committee for Local Government Conference that the world won't end if we're allowed to debate the merits and consequences of local authorities considering refusing to set balanced budgets...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unity against intolerance on Holocaust Memorial Day

The theme of this year's Holocaust Memorial Day, which is now drawing to a close, is "Communities Together: Build a Bridge". It's appropriate therefore today to read a report of emerging unity in opposition to the so-called "March for England" which annually seeks to invade Brighton in April.

Genocide is the extreme expression of the intolerance, bigotry and hatred displayed by the "March for England" - or, as the statement of commitment for Holocaust Memorial Day says "we recognise that humanity is still scarred by the belief that race, religion, disability or sexuality make some people’s lives worth less than others’. Genocide, anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia and discrimination still continue. We have a shared responsibility to fight these evils."

As well as being a UNISON activist, I am a member of the Labour Party in Brighton and am pleased to see a number of leading Labour Party members putting their name to the call for unity against the March for England.

Solidarity with Mid Yorkshire strikers

Up to 500 UNISON and UNITE health workers in Mid-Yorkshire start a 5 day strike against compulsory redundancies at midnight tonight.

This action follows three days of strike action in November which inspired solidarity and support from other UNISON branches.

For details of the dispute, which is about job losses but also about defending Agenda for Change, I recommend the online report from InFocus on the UNISON website.

Details of how to send messages of support and donations are set out on the Unite the Resistance website;

Please send messages of support to midyorksunison@aol.co.uk

Financial donations to the hardship fund can be sent to:

UNISON Mid Yorkshire Health 20671

c/c Trade Union Office

Pinderfields Hospital

Aberford Road

Wakefield

WF1 4DG

The threat to Lewisham A&E - Tories waging class war

I'm pleased to be on the way to the Lewisham hospital demonstration - an excellent summary of the necessity for which is set out on the False Economy blog (http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/lewisham-hospital-consultation-ignored-protest-26-january).



Of course, I'd be still more pleased not to have to demonstrate because the closure proposals had been withdrawn.



With 96% opposition from Lewisham residents to the proposed closure of the recently refurbished A&E, it's obvious that the Tories haven't won the argument for closure - and equally obvious that they don't give a damn. Closing a well run hospital in an area where no one votes Tory is a fine example of the brutal cynicism of the Millionaires' Government.



It's a further expression of the raw class hatred shown by the targetting of local government funding cuts to poorer - and predominantly Labour-voting areas (http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/poorest-areas-are-hardest-hit-cuts-heat-maps).



The question which is posed to our movement is - what shall we do?



Labour needs a final breach with the toxic politics of New Labour (the failed Private Finance Initiative is part of the background to today's demonstration) - the Party needs to defend our people now, not just sit and wait "prudently" to be elected in 2015 to govern a country which will no longer have a National Health Service.



The trade unions also need to coordinate national opposition both to the Government's attacks and to those in Labour's ranks who fail to oppose them.



UNISON's support for today's demonstration is welcome and important (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=8317). If the Secretary of State is not swayed by popular opinion campaigners, and local trade unionists, will have to decide what to do next.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The mystery of the movement which did not bark (yet)

Owen Jones once more makes constructive use of the platform he has as a columnist http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/british-politics-is-in-urgent-need-of-a-new-force--a-ukip-of-the-left-to-counter-the-crisis-of-capitalism-8459099.html”to call for “a movement uniting all those desperate for a coherent alternative to the tragedy of austerity”

and, in so doing, throws down a challenge to all those of us who believe that we are trying to build such a movement. Owen poses the “mystery” of why there is not already an effective network of opponents of austerity.

It's the mystery of the movement which did not bark (yet).

I can’t claim to be able to solve this “mystery” completely but I think I can see some part of the answer. Let’s start with an honest assessment of where we are. The history of the first half of this Parliament is a sad history of the failure of the opponents of a weak Government with no mandate. We have failed to prevent tuition fees or to defend our National Health Service. We have failed to mobilise the potential strength of organised labour, other than for momentary demonstrations of that strength. We have even failed to win the Parliamentary opposition to anything more than the slightest leftward shift from the poisonous legacy of New Labour to the meaningless “One Nation Labour”.

What we are witnessing as trade unionists is the consequence of a generation of social and political change since the defeat of the miners. Our trade unions, objectively weaker than in the 1980s, are subjectively weaker still because of an ingrained acquiescence on the part of the union bureaucracy to the legal shackles imposed by Thatcher and Major and retained by Blair and Brown – and a self-denying ordinance from on high which prevents us from using our potential influence over “our” Party. We have, for example, hundreds of Councillors who are members of the “big three” trade unions, not all of whom merely for show, yet we have miserably failed to influence these Councillors to resist vicious cuts. Our trade unions have been bereft of a political strategy for all of the decade that I have served on UNISON’s National Executive.

At the same time very many of the committed socialists who could be mobilised to try to transform our movement are enmeshed in organisations which are plainly incapable of effective political action in the twenty first century. If forced to choose between those who consider themselves revolutionaries and those who lead our movement I would always choose those who want to change the world rather than live comfortably within it, but comrades seeking to change our world from within political parties or groups which aspire to be Bolsheviks a century ago are walled off from achieving their own objectives. Whether this self-imposed irrelevance derives from purposeless “party building” or futile electoral adventures, it serves to insulate some of our best trade union activists from the influence our class needs them to have within our ranks.

Beyond the ranks of the organised labour movement there are millions who are angry and can be mobilised (or, which is more to the point, will mobilise themselves) from time to time. Away from the timidity of our movement’s leadership and the rigidity of their critics within our movement, groups such as UK Uncut, Disabled People Against Cuts and the student movement have all shown the militancy and radicalism for which socialists hope from the workers’ movement. However, without a means of focusing organised political pressure on the Government (by posing an alternative) their exemplary resistance is inevitably reactive and therefore limited.

For all that pessimism of the intellect is called for, our optimism of the will should be sustained not only by these spontaneous struggles which are emerging around us, but also by the success with which trade unionists are resisting and limiting the damage being done to our members where we organise effectively and show courage and determination. The challenge before us is somehow to focus struggle through the labour movement in order to articulate a viable political alternative to austerity.

This is, in many ways, the task for which the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) was refounded some years ago. However, as utterly unconvincing as the mission to create a “new workers party” so obviously is, the persuasiveness of those of us who believe that we can “reclaim” the Labour Party is plainly equally in question.

The movement we have to build must be much bigger and broader than those around the LRC at present – and it may find new answers to the challenges it faces which we cannot anticipate. I cannot, however, see that there is a better place to start building the movement for which Owen rightly calls than by putting the challenge of doing so plainly before the LRC.

The LRC Members of Parliament, and those trade union leaders associated with the LRC, could become the focus for drawing together the opponents of austerity, within and without the Labour Party, within and without other political organisations and within and without the organised labour movement. As difficult as this may seem, I can’t see who else is better placed (or perhaps “less worse placed”) to do this.

We won’t build a movement overnight, but we could begin to organise some activity which tries to build upon the grassroots resistance to austerity and give it some meaningful political direction. Please let's not ever call it a "UKIP of the left" though!

Save Lewisham Hospital

Following the massive demonstration last November in defence of Lewisham Hospital a further demonstration is taking place next Saturday, 26 January.

As a one time patient at the hospital, and the father of a child born in the threatened maternity unit, I have a personal as well as a political motivation to ask readers to support the demonstration and sign the online petition.

Caught between the Scylla of Coalition cutbacks and the Charybdis of the financial legacy of the disastrous Private Finance Initiative, our health service faces potential devastation, of which the threats to Lewisham Hospital represent a crucial moment. If the Government can be prevented from closing Lewisham Hospital that could be a turning point, and the next step must be to support Saturday’s demonstration. Assemble at Lewisham Roundabout (by the station) at 12 noon on Saturday 26th January.

Barnet fighting privatisation

 

On Tuesday 22 January opponents of the “One Barnet” privatisation programme will hand in their petition, signed so far by more than 8,000 Barnet residents, to Barnet Council. The petition calls on the council to halt the One Barnet programme – the process of giving away 70-90% of our public services to big multinationals, including Capita - until they have held a REFERENDUM.

This is why they are calling for the referendum (hat tip Barnet UNISON)



We were not consulted about handing over £1 billion of our money in contracts to companies like Capita;



We will not be consulted when the services we use daily will be provided by big businesses, interested only in their profits;



We were not asked whether we are willing to give up our local democracy and accountability to councillors, when services will be subject to 'commercial confidentiality';



The ruling Conservative group did not listen when we pointed out the huge risks of letting such big contracts for so many years to a company with too many failures to its name;



The ruling Conservative group don’t appear to care that our local economy will deteriorate further when Barnet residents lose their jobs with the council and local traders lose business as a consequence;



We will have to pay through the nose if we want to get out of the 10-year One Barnet contracts and bring services back in-house

The Conservatives could pay a high political price for One Barnet, losing their majority in the 2014 council elections – but even if this happens, residents could still be landed with the One Barnet bill. Barnet UNISON have waged an exemplary campaign to resist this privatisation over many years and deserve the full support of all trade unionists.

If you can get to Hendon Town Hall on Tuesday evening you can support them in person. If you can’t then there’s an e-petition to sign on Barnet Council’s website.

Save Our Fire Service

The London Region of the Fire Brigades Union has called a lobby of the next Fire Authority meeting on Monday 21 January 2013 at 1.30pm at the London Fire Brigade headquarters at 169 Union Street, London SE1 0LL to protest at plans to close 12 fire stations, remove 18 fire engines and slash 520 firefighter posts details are online here.

UNISON's Greater London Regional Committee has encouraged UNISON members to attend if possible, and our members who work for the Fire Authority will be supporting the lobby in opposition to these cuts. Those of us who work in Lambeth have particular cause to reflect on what the FBU's Regional Secretary, Paul Embery had to say; "The helicopter crash that occurred earlier this week showed the importance of having a properly-funded, well-resourced fire service in the capital, and it is worthy of note that the first crew at the scene was mobilised from a station – Clapham – earmarked for closure and arrived within four minutes." 

We need to do all we can to oppose these cuts, which literally and very obviously threaten life and limb. If you can't get to the lobby then sign the online petition.

UNISON's London Regional Committee - to infinity and beyond?

I understand that there is a point of view that, since there are an infinite number of numbers it follows that there are an infinite number of realities.



If this is so then there must be a universe in which the London Regional Committee of UNISON, which met this morning, makes sense.



Mathematically, there must be a reality in which a Committee which doesn't care that it has failed to organise a quorate Regional Council (other than its AGM) since 2005 is nevertheless a paragon of labour movement virtue.



In this universe however, a Regional Committee the leadership of which is happy not to have a functioning Regional Council, is a sorry creature.



We need effective and vigorous unity to confront the attacks from the Coalition Government. Such unity cannot be built on the basis of dereliction of duty such as that shown by our Regional Committee, which has failed to arrange a quorate Regional Council (other than an AGM) in eight years.



Trade union democracy - which requires well attended decisionmaking meetings - is not an "optional extra". It is essential to an effective response to austerity and to the defence of workers' interests more generally.



Given the infinite possibilities of the "multiverse" there must remain hope that the Regional Committee will rise to this potential occasion and ensure a quorate Regional Council after this year's AGM.



Or perhaps not.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Councillors against cuts

A very welcome addition to the internet is the online presence of Councillors against cuts (http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/). I urge you to follow that link (indeed if you only have a few moments online that will be a better use of your time than reading the remainder of this post).

The few pioneers who have put their names to this initiative stand in the best and proudest tradition of Labour representatives in local government, a tradition punctuated by Poplar, Clay Cross, Lambeth and Liverpool, by those who remember, with George Lansbury, that it is "better to break the law than to break the poor."

There are many more Labour Councillors whose hearts are with those elected representatives who have pledged not to collude with the Tory destruction of our welfare state. However, most of these do not believe effective resistance is possible, or fear that their reward for similar courage would be to lose the whip. In saluting those Councillors who have stood up in defence of services, I'm not with those who would denounce all those who have (as yet) failed to do so.

The task for those of us who believe that Labour should be a true shield for our communities (rather than - at best - a cushion absorbing a little of the Tory blows raining down on us) is a task of persuasion rather than denunciation.

Our adversaries within Labour are those who believe that local government is essentially a proving ground, and that all real politics is at Westminster. Whether these "comrades" (the inverted commas are for those in the Sainsbury/Progress faction) are trying to "prove" that a local Labour administration can be "prudent", or whether they are more interested in proving that they themselves would make a good MP, they prioritise the administration of the local state over representing the interests of the local working class.

Under a Government which has already - in effect - abolished the National Health Service as we have known it and taken the larger part of secondary education out of local democratic control, it is not possible to administer the local state in a manner which is consistent with the interests of the local working class. This is true with greatest force in those Northern cities (and Inner London Boroughs!) - overwhelmingly Labour controlled - where the cuts are deepest.

Developing a socialist alternative to administering Tory cuts as kindly as possible is not at all a "return to the 80s". In the first place, it was precisely in the 80s that those currently calling the shots in the Labour Party rose to power - and the actual practice of the great majority of the Party in local government was the tragic failure of Kinnock's "dented shield." Secondly, the challenge we face now is so much greater than that faced a generation ago that the comparison simply cannot be made.

"Councillors Against the Cuts" have done us all a great service - by reminding us that there is a political debate to be had about the role of the Labour Party in resisting this Government. The challenge to the leadership of the trade unions is whether we will defend these Councillors and promote their arguments, which are the logical consequence of the policies of the unions and the TUC.

It's time the trade unions fought for our policies in the Party and backed those who support them. Will we?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Debating our future

Before Xmas I blogged some comments on a useful article by left academic Ralph Darlington about the current state of our movement (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/how-do-we-regain-our-strength.html?m=1).

I'm pleased to see that the comrades over at UNISON Anonymous have picked up on the debate (http://unisonactive.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/building-workers-confidence-and-rank.html?m=1) - albeit the SWP flavour of comrade Darlington's conclusions isn't quite to their taste.

There is some force in their criticism that Darlington's positive assessment of independent rank and file forces is "wishful thinking". It might be more polite to say that his optimism of the will may have obscured his pessimism of the intellect on this point. Certainly, as a member from its inception of UNISON United Left, I would never claim it was anywhere near being the rank and file movement which socialists would like to see.

However, there is an obvious flaw in their conclusion that "building rank and file movements and linking with social movements is not a strategy for building and growing, they are the strategies of a powerful and well organised union not ones struggling to be relevant in the workplace." This ignores the historical evidence, to which Darlington refers, which shows that our movement grows when it is strong and autonomous at the base and reaches out beyond the workplace.

The anonymous commentator rehearses some common sense steps which any decent activist would endorse - and their reservations about cackhanded "politicisation" by activists are not entirely without merit. However, whilst Darlington may be criticised for conclusions which go beyond his evidence and argument, UNISON Active are characteristically timid and apolitical.

If we were going to rebuild our movement with the ten year old syllabus from "Winning the Organised Workplace" we wouldn't be having this debate now!

It's time to put down the metaphorical icepick comrades. UNISON Active often includes thoughtful contributions (some of which are attributed!)

I think you could do better comrades. Give it a go?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

An offer we can refuse

A week from today the national employers' side negotiators are likely to make a formal offer for the 2013/14 pay round.



Time was this annual event would have been unremarkable, but it's something which hasn't happened over the past three years. This must be a cause of some relief to the employers' side negotiators, since if we never got pay offers the employers might not need negotiators.



So, let me say it again.



A week from today the national employers' side negotiators are likely to make a formal offer for the 2013/14 pay round.



Whether there shall be any cause for celebration on the trade union side is, however, questionable.



Wiser and better informed sources than your humble blogger (Sid and Doris Service Group) predict an offer of 1% probably minus the worst of the mooted "strings" (an assault on sick pay).



I don't think we'll be putting champagne on ice in our branch office though - even if an attack on conditions which hasn't happened doesn't happen.



There would be nothing to celebrate if we end up with a pay "rise" which is a further reduction in real earnings (as the percentage increase in pay would fall well below the current rate of price increases).



The standard of living of the many local government workers who have seen neither a promotion nor incremental progression since 2009 has fallen by one sixth. At the same time, as tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, workloads have been rising inexorably.



Now is the time to implement the policy moved at last September's TUC by UNISON's own Dave Prentis - and to seek to coordinate action to smash the Government's pay policy.



This means that the trade unions in local government need to find the confidence to recommend rejection of a below-inflation pay offer, and to campaign energetically and persuasively for our members to be prepared to take strike action to win the increase we deserve.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

2013 - the need for political trade unionism

It may not be the best or easiest year in which to be a socialist and trade unionist - but there's little doubt that most years in the past two centuries have commenced less auspiciously and that those who came before us didn't flinch from getting on with the difficult job of building our movement and defending the interests of working people (nor did they sneer for that matter!)

So we have to get on with it. And we have to recognise the difficulties which we face.

The Coalition Government has cut through us like a scythe over the past two years, having come to office to find a labour movement demoralised and disoriented by the defeats and betrayals of the New Labour years. Resistance has been patchy in the sense that arable farming in the Sahara is patchy - it has been very very limited at a local level.

Those of us who hoped to engender a meaningful national fight (which might better have inspired local resistance) have failed because the approach of the national leadership of our movement has been to mirror what they perceive at the base with what might best be described as "qualified despair" - and we have failed to change this (yet).

The public service pensions dispute was our best chance to inflict a setback upon the Government in this Parliament. We failed to do so because of a lack of confidence from top to bottom of the movement. It's easy to be angry with the leadership and their supporters (and I am) but trite to characterise this simply as "betrayal."

The leadership may have been culpable for circumstances in which we did not mobilise our members for action which could win a real victory - but the importance of their lack of confidence was magnified by the weakness of the left and rank and file.

Comparing our circumstances now with those two and a half years into Thatcher's first term (which seems sensible) we have half the trade union members we had then, we have - comparatively - a pitiably weak and marginalised left wing in the Labour Party, a Communist Party which is barely an echo of its former self and a far left which is floundering and without direction (to put it kindly).

In local government, these political weaknesses are reflected in the fact that we have almost no political support for a position of outright opposition to all spending cuts. In 2013 there are fewer Councillors prepared to resist all cuts in England than there were local authorities prepared to take that position in the mid-80s.

The pointless diversion of "building a new workers party" is less relevant now than at any point in the thirteen years of (New) Labour Government, but the important weaknesses and errors are at the top, not on the margins of the movement.

We need a clear focus from the trade unions on building and developing the Labour Party as a focus for our opposition to austerity. We might wish for a different or better political vehicle for our hopes - but we might wish for almost anything. We won't get it. What we have is the Labour Party.

The failed approach of having "influence" over the Labour Party leadership is not, however, the answer, although it may well be what the big trade unions continue to try to do. This was the approach which saw Foundation Hospitals delivered with the votes (against UNISON policy) of UNISON MPs. This was the approach which has done so much to discredit our relationship with the Labour Party in the eyes of the rank and file.

We need rather to see the Labour Party for what it is and has always been - an arena for struggle to promote workers' interests.

Whether or not we believe in class war it is being waged against us. We therefore need to fight back on every front, including within the Labour Party. In 2013, more than ever, we need political trade unionism.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

New Year's Resolution - Defend Sick Pay

I started the New Year off sick and am just now getting into work, my cough providing a percussion accompaniment to the ever more expensive train.

Whilst unpleasant, this is strangely appropriate, since we know that, in their quest to offer "red meat" to some of the least evolved of their constituents, the national employers' side negotiators in local government have our sick pay scheme in their sights.

There was, before the holiday, a modest amount of confusion in the Great White Elephant of the Euston Road as to whether the employers had in fact made an offer of a 1% pay rise "with strings" to local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is clear now that no offer has yet been made.

It is equally clear that, when it comes, the offer to end the pay freeze will be of an increase well below the current rate of price inflation (continuing, if we were to accept, the decline in our living standards). Furthermore, this paltry offer will be linked to unacceptable attacks on conditions of service (the "strings").

One of these which has been widely trailed is a "reform" of our sick pay scheme, which provides for a reasonable and civilised amount of pay for those who are unwell. It's not difficult to anticipate the arguments that will be advanced to attack the sick, because they will echo the arguments used to justify the assault upon our pensions.

We will be told that we are featherbedded public servants and that workers in unorganised areas of the private sector cope with being impoverished if they become unwell (or drag themselves in and share their infection with colleagues and customers).

No doubt we will also be told that many Tory donors in the insurance industry stand ready to sell us products which might make up for any sick pay we could lose...

Whilst I think it's obvious that reasonable sick pay provisions (which really reflect distributional justice within the workforce rather than generosity from the employers) are essential to decency in the workplace, I can also already hear the handwringers claiming that our members don't want to fight.

I therefore suggest two resolutions for the New Year. First, we need to take the argument for the defence of sick pay to our own members, win it and mobilise for action.

Secondly, if you do go into work with a cough then be careful not to infect anyone else - unless they are arguing against action to defend sick pay (in which case they deserve it...)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

New Year's Message to shop stewards

We are now half way through a Parliament in which the Coalition Government has used the opportunity of an economic crisis caused by the banks to launch an attack upon our welfare state which they have wanted for a generation.

 

The years of pay freeze, job losses and attacks on benefits and services have not reduced the public sector deficit - because that has never been the Government's intention. For the Cabinet of millionaires, the attack on our living standards and public services is an end in itself.

 

It will be a difficult year in 2013 (as UNISON warns on our national website today - http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2923) but if we work hard together we can make it less difficult - and make a real positive difference.

 

At a local level, since the General Election, we have lost hundreds of jobs in the Council, including some compulsory redundancies. However, we have also delayed and/or avoided many job losses.

 

The stronger and more effectively we are organised at a local level, the better will be the job that we can do to limit the damage being done to jobs and services as a result of the Government's economic policy.

 

In particular, we need to be prepared to win arguments with our members, perhaps section-by-section, to be prepared to take industrial action as part of our campaigning activity against cuts. In general we need to encourage more activism, including lobbies of Council meetings and participation in all sorts of campaigning.

 

Now more than ever we need to remember, and remind our members, that the Union is not something else, separate from the membership, and that we need to organise and mobilise our members to be active in defending our interests as local government workers.

 

Of course we also need to see a change in approach nationally from the leaders of the trade unions and the Labour Party if we are to be able to reverse the attacks upon our living standards and public services from the Government. We can only do so much at a local level.

 

Former Council Leader, Ted Knight, has recently explained what Labour Councils should be doing, with which I agree wholeheartedly and which I would urge you to read (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/30/coalition-resistance-local-council-cuts).

 

Our Branch Annual General Meeting will be an opportunity for us to consider what demands we should be making to our UNISON Conference about how our trade unions use the power of our six million members to stand up to the Government.

 

As much as I know 2013 will be tough and will see a lot of hard work, I cannot imagine a better place in which to face this challenge than the Lambeth branch of UNISON. I look forward to seeing you at the next Branch Committee and at the Annual General Meeting.

How do we regain our strength?

The previous post on this blog finished asking whether our trade union movement is as weak as it might appear, and what we can do about this.

The effectiveness of the trade union movement, at every level, depends upon our objective strength vis-à-vis our opponents and upon our subjective willingness to use that strength. A useful recent overview of our strength is provided by Ralph Darlington in The state of workplace union reps' organization in Britain today, Capital & Class, No. 34, pp. 126-135 (the link is to a freely available online version).

This focuses on the key element of workplace representation, our shop steward structure and picks out factors such as the increase in the ratio of union members to stewards (from 1:25 in 1984 to 1:37) as an indicator of decline. A reduced number of shop stewards are also less autonomous than was previously the case. Darlington argues that shop stewards are now “much more dependent on full-time union officials compared with the relative independence of the 1970s.”

However, Darlington also acknowledges evidence of the continuing strength and health of workplace trade union organisation, point out that; “even though the balance of power remains significantly in favour of the employers, they still feel considerable constraints on the ‘right to manage’ in many workplaces. Shop stewards and other lay union reps are still able to resist, amend or undermine management initiatives on some occasions and win concessions and gains on others.”

This rings true, as does the subsequent conclusion that “the two crucial basic, albeit often ignored, ingredients for the rebuilding of a strong workplace union reps’ movement are struggle and politics.”

The evidence of trade union membership data, whether at the level of the movement as a whole or at the level of individual trade unions, is that struggle is associated with growth. Periods of transformative growth in trade union power have also, historically, been associated with widespread political engagement, or as Darlington puts it; “the strength and militancy of the First World War shop stewards movement, the rebuilding of stewards’ organisation in the 1930s, and the powerful stewards’ movement of the 1960s and 1970s, did not develop in a political vacuum.”

Regular readers of this blog (Sidand Doris Trotwatcher) won’t be surprise by my conclusion that, if we want to rebuild our trade unions, we need to be prepared to adopt an assertive and combative approach, and to be hospitable to radical politics. As to the practical application of this conclusion, I shall blog further…

Plebgate - it's our fault comrades...

“Plebgate” poses a real problem for socialists of a certain age. It’s hard not laugh out loud. Unfortunately the underlying truth is less amusing.

Of course, when a former Tory Police Minister takes to the liberal press to take pot shots at the Police FederationI can think of nothing so much as the saying beloved of an old friend and comrade; “when thieves fall out, honest people smile.”

The shock with which Tories appear to be discovering that sometimes police officers fabricate evidenceis even funnier, to a cynical old 1980s lefty, than the shock with which the previously willing tools of Tory policy are experiencing their betrayal.

However, if trade unionists are the honest people in all of this, then I’m afraid we have few reasons to smile, because the reason this falling out is even possible is our own weakness.

The belated recognition being given officially to the blatantly partisan policing of the Miners’ strike of 1984/5 (reflected in Early Day Motion 775) is a reminder of how closely intertwined were the police with the last Conservative Government.

Thatcher protected the Police from her attacks upon public services because she needed a force prepared to restrain the resistance of a trade union movement thirteen million strong, twice as large as we are today.

Today our membership density is 26% across the economy, compared with a peak of 50% in 1979. The Coalition have concluded that we are not a threat and, as they have no “enemy within” they have no need to cushion the “thin blue line” from cuts to the extent that Thatcher did.

This begs the questions, are we really this weak and what can we do to strengthen ourselves?

Your P45 is 45 days nearer courtesy of the Lib Dems

As our trade unions continue to fall back in the face of a determined offensive from the Government of millionaires they continue to advance against us.

Today's announcement of a halving of the statutory minimum consultation period on mass redundancies is a case in point (http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Boost-for-business-as-government-sets-out-plans-to-update-employment-legislation-68512.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bis-news+(BIS+News)).

The 90 day consultation period when consulting on more than 100 proposed redundancies is set to be halved - bringing our P45s 45 days nearer in such circumstances.

The cases of workers whose fixed term contracts expire and are not renewed are also to be excluded from the consultation provisions - and we'll need to watch carefully how that is done (and whether there is scope for legal challenge in Europe).

Having spent time most days since the last General Election (as many before) engaged in redundancy consultation at the sharp end, I can say that this measure to limit redundancy consultation will serve simply as a licence for poor employers to drive down standards of good practice.

Meaningful consultation, with proper consideration of the responses to consultation, takes as long as it takes - and if trade unions are to come up with alternatives to throwing our people on the scrap heap - we need to take that time. The case law definition of meaningful consultation is not changed by this announcement of course, and union reps must certainly not become more timid in response to this deeply reactionary step.

Good employers, with collectively agreed redundancy procedures which embody current legal provisions, should stand firm and - in particular - Labour-controlled employers (in local government) should pledge to continue to observe a minimum 90 day consultation period when proposing 100+ redundancies (though of course what we really want from Labour employers is that they stop making redundancies and work with the trade unions to develop a political strategy that will deliver redundancy notices to the Ministers spearheading this further attack upon our rights!)

Incidentally, little known LibDem stooge of the Tories, Jo Swinson, who announced this assault upon workers rights, in order to appease the Institute of Directors and other swivel-eyed elements on the foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing, once founded and chaired the All Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics.

Perhaps that's why she wants to make it quicker and easier for bosses to liberate some of us from the curse of wage slavery?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Sectarianism - an award for the worst of 2012

On Tuesday morning I joined a lobby of Congress House called by both the National Shop Stewards Network (http://shopstewards.net/) and "Unite the Resistance" (http://uniteresist.org/).

The purpose of the lobby was to press for more rapid action in response to September's Congress decisions in favour of co-ordinated industrial action and to "consider the practicalities" of a General Strike.

On being asked to say a few words, I said a few gently critical things about the leadership of our movement (which were well received) and - reflecting views I have expressed here previously (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/resist-unity.html?m=1) - I called for unity on the left (which was less well received).

It is, of course, regrettable that the weakness and marginalisation of the anti-cuts movement, and the left generally, within our trade unions has created the environment in which there are rival, competing campaigns aiming to do essentially the same thing.

However, the damage done by sectarianism on the left is as nothing to the damage done to our labour and trade union movement by sectarianism against the left.

Also this week I had the misfortune to read a diatribe circulated electronically by a trade union branch secretary, with the assistance of the employer to all staff (not simply members of the trade union) which concerned a nationally important fight to save a vital public service.

This unfortunate correspondence, in expressing opposition on behalf of the trade union to certain tactical options proposed by activists, expressed the view that "political organizations external to [the trade union] such as the Socialist Workers' Party and/or the Socialist Party (amongst others) are behind them."

The author went on as follows; "It is an unfortunate fact of life that there do exist in other local branches a tiny minority of SWP/SP members who hide behind the facade of being stewards of [the trade union] (as well as other Trade Unions) and use their positions to continually undermine their branches and push their own brand of extreme and minority politics."

This unbalanced and ill-judged contribution to communication from the trade union movement to the wider workforce is a clear winner of this blog's award for "Sectarian nonsense of the year 2012".

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unregulated observations

Trade unionists can have no love for our current "free" press, which specialised in attacking our movement rhetorically long before Murdoch's move to Wapping in 86 opened a continuing war on their own workers.



I'm pleased, however, to find (in today's Morning Star - http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/127223) that I'm not alone in suspecting that quasi-statutory regulation overseen by Law Lords may not be the right answer to any question.



It's well worth following that link to read Solomon Hughes reviewing the many misdeeds of our monopoly-owned press, and arguing that it's ownership of the media that needs to be properly regulated.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

General Secretary Election?

According to Jerry Hicks, defeated candidate for UNITE General Secretary in the last election, today's meeting of the Executive of our sister/competitor Union may be about to agree to hold a further election for that post (http://grassrootsleftunite.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/unite-make-plans-to-call-snap-election.html?m=1).



What UNITE does is a matter for the members, activists and elected representatives of that Union, including the majority of the Executive organised around the United Left (http://unitedleft.org.uk/) - an impressive electoral machine which, as a UNISON member, I can only regard with envy.



Crying "foul" because you think an incumbent candidate may use their influence to timetable an election to their benefit is fairly futile (as we in UNISON know from experience).



UNISON activists will of course recollect that we have ourselves experience of timetabling issues around such elections (including the only previously unscheduled special meeting of our National Executive Council in 2010).



Speaking with all the authority of one of the most miserable failures in the history of left wing challengers for the position of General Secretary, and as someone who has yet to vote for the winning candidate in such an election, I have wise words for those watching the UNISON Centre;



"Watch this space."



(Particularly the sixth and seventh floors).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Can we win by force of argument?

With Osborne set to admit that collapsing the UK economy has not brought down the deficit, UNISON's announcement of ways in which billions could easily be found to restore jobs and services is timely (http://union-news.co.uk/2012/12/stop-corporate-theft-unisons-45bn-plan-to-save-economy/).

In truth, even if we couldn't identify the billions readily available, it would make sense for the Government to increase spending in order to boost the economy (and to reduce the proportion of Gross Domestic Product accounted for by debt by increasing the size of the denominator).

However, because of the stranglehold of sub-Thatcherite economic quackery on popular consciousness it is certainly valuable to have a quick answer to the question "where will the money come from?" (even if it would be a better answer to explain that that isn't the right question).

It's similar to the importance of showing local authorities where they can make real efficiencies, or legitimately draw on reserves, in order to protect jobs and services. UNISON are doing the same job nationally that many branches seek to do locally.

As opinion polls increasingly show majority opposition to further cuts it's clear that our movement is winning the argument, and the battle for public opinion, with the advocates of austerity.

However, it would be a mistake to think that there is much prospect of winning anything on this score by force of argument.

This Government are not savaging welfare, attacking the most vulnerable and undermining workers' rights because they believe these things to be economically necessary but because they believe them to be socially desirable.

The deficit (caused by bailing out the banks) is not the reason for any of this, simply a convenient excuse.

The strategic objective of our trade union movement ought to be resistance (which may help us to survive), not survival (in order to achieve which we may need to be seen to resist).

As part of this approach we need to promote the coherent and radical alternative to austerity which is reflected in the policies of UNISON and the TUC but not in the policy or practice of the Labour Opposition - and we need to fight for it in the hear and now, as well as vote for it when we can.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Disability - think globally act locally

Today, according to the United Nations is International Day for People with Disabilities (http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1597).



Here in the UK every day is a day for the Tory led Coalition to attack disabled people, whether by forcing people off benefits, or out of work, or both.



The emergence of Disabled People Against the Cuts (http://www.dpac.uk.net/) is perhaps the most positive indication in this country of work being done towards achieving this year's international theme for today, which is "removing barriers to create an inclusive and accessible society for all."



The double irony, for a rank and file workplace trade union representative, of our Government's approach to disabled people is not only the hypocritical push to take jobs which aren't there (thanks to Tory economic policy), but also the way disabled workers are so often treated by employers.



Even in organisations with sound and progressive paper policies, too many managers (under increasing pressure to hit targets and cut costs) can be prone to see disabled colleagues as a problem rather than an asset.



As trade unionists we need to be clear that the problem is the discrimination against disabled people, of which such attitudes are one manifestation.



Solidarity to disabled brothers and sisters in UNISON and all trade unions, and to all those grassroots union representatives tackling disability discrimination today and every day.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange